AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. A.M. Shaffique, J. - This review petition has been filed by the petitioner in the writ petition inter alia contending that the contentions urged by the petitioners as reflected in the review petition has not been considered.
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner as a party-in-person and in the form of a public interest litigation virtually seeking necessary changes to the statutory scheme of Employee''s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the EPF Act'') taking into account the contentions urged by the petitioner. By the judgment under review, we have come to the conclusion that the EPF Act contains substantial provisions providing various benefits to the employees engaged in factories and other establishments. Referring to a Constitution Bench judgment in Mohmedalli v. Union of India (1963 Suppl (1) SCR 993) and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Provident Fund Commissioner [(2009) 10 SCC 123], it was held that the EPF Act had been framed to provide financial benefit to the workers who contribute to the growth of industry and industrialization of the country. However, we declined to pass orders as sought for by the petitioner on the ground that the relief sought for by the petitioner comes within the realm of jurisdiction of the Parliament and such policy matters cannot be adjudicated by this Court. It is also observed that the petitioner, being a person aggrieved by the imposition of penalty and damages of Rs. 65,735/- on account of the delay in making contribution itself was the reason to dismiss the writ petition.
It is settled law that Court will not entertain public interest litigation, if it is found that the petitioner has any personal interest in the matter. When it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had been imposed with penal interest and damages, this Court held that the said fact itself was a reason for dismissing the writ petition. However, the matter was considered further and it was found that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present writ petition.
Though it is submitted by the review petitioner as a party-in-person that the issue is liable to be discussed further and decision on merits is required, taking into consideration the pleadings in the case, we do not think that a different view is possible.
The review petition is maintainable only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission [(2009) 10 SCC 464], the Apex Court while considering the scope of Order 47, Rule 1 held that the error must be an error of inadvertence. It should be some thing more than a mere error and it must be one which is manifest on the face of record. A review will lie only if the error is so apparent and without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant. Under the guise of review the parties are not entitled for a re-hearing of the same issue. In the present case, we declined to exercise jurisdiction with reference to the relief sought for, on the ground that the issues raised are policy matters which come within the realm of jurisdiction of the legislature. To amend the statute, it apparently requires a complete analysis and study of the industrial growth in the country. Such issues cannot be adjudicated by this Court.
Under such circumstances we do not think that any of the grounds raised in the review petition prompts us to take a different view from what has already been stated.
Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter.
The review petition is dismissed.